The Experts below are selected from a list of 355071 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Robert Hodgson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Tisagenlecleucel for the Treatment of Relapsed or Refractory B-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia in People Aged up to 25 Years: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2019Co-Authors: Matthew Walton, Lindsay Claxton, Sahar Sharif, Mark Simmonds, Robert HodgsonAbstract:As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE’s) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, Novartis submitted evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel for treating paediatric and young adult patients (under the age of 25 years) with relapsed or refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). This article presents a summary of the Evidence Review Group’s (ERG’s) independent review of the evidence submission, the committee’s deliberations, and the subsequent development of NICE guidance for the use of tisagenlecleucel on the National Health Service (NHS) in England. Tisagenlecleucel is a chimeric antigen receptor-modified T-cell (CAR-T) product, the first of this emerging therapeutic class to be considered by NICE in this indication. The company’s evidence submission was based upon three Single-arm, phase II studies: ELIANA, ENSIGN, and B2101J. These trials demonstrated a beneficial effect of tisagenlecleucel, with significant extensions in event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to historical control datasets on blinatumomab and salvage chemotherapy. Adverse events were common; 77% of patients suffered from cytokine release syndrome (CRS), 56% of whom required intensive care unit-level care. The ERG did not consider clofarabine monotherapy an appropriate proxy for salvage chemotherapy. The company presented a hybrid cost-effectiveness model, combining a decision tree and three-state partitioned survival model structure. The majority of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were generated through additional life-years in the extrapolated ‘long-term survival’ phase of the model, where patients were assumed to be ‘cured’. The ERG considered the results to be subject to substantial uncertainty, due in part to immature trial data, unresolved long-term treatment effects, and a lack of appropriate comparator data. The ERG implemented a number of changes to the company’s model in an alternative base case, producing deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £45,397 per QALY gained versus salvage chemotherapy, and £27,732 versus blinatumomab. The probabilistic model produced ICERs of £48,265 per QALY gained versus salvage chemotherapy, and £29,501 versus blinatumomab. The committee considered the ERG’s analysis to be most closely aligned with their preferred assumptions, and did not consider tisagenlecleucel to meet both of the end-of-life (EoL) criteria. In recognition of the innovative nature of tisagenlecleucel, and the present immaturity of ongoing clinical trials, the committee considered further data collection would be valuable in resolving uncertainties around OS, the Technology’s novel mechanism of action, and the management of CRS and B-cell aplasia. The committee therefore recommended tisagenlecleucel for use in the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) until the conclusion of the ELIANA study (June 2023). This appraisal highlighted the difficulty of interpreting EoL criteria in the context of curative therapies and the valuation of cure versus extension of life. Further clarification of NICE’s position in these situations may be necessary to ensure consistency and equity in their decision-making.
-
ceritinib for untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive advanced non small cell lung cancer an evidence review group evaluation of a nice Single Technology appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2019Co-Authors: Lindsay Claxton, Nerys Woolacott, Joanne Oconnor, Kath Wright, Robert HodgsonAbstract:The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ceritinib (Zykadia®, Novartis) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug, as a first-line treatment for adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive (+) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as part of the Institute’s Single Technology appraisal (STA) process. The CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) and CHE (Centre for Health Economics) Technology Assessment Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the Company’s submission (CS), the ERG review and NICE’s subsequent decisions. The evidence submitted in support of ceritinib, as the first-line treatment in ALK+ advanced NSCLC, was a phase III, international, multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing ceritinib with pemetrexed/cisplatin plus pemetrexed maintenance therapy (chemotherapy [CT] group). The results indicated that ceritinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with CT. The only comparator considered in the CS was crizotinib. The evidence selected in support of crizotinib was PROFILE 1014, an open-label RCT of crizotinib, compared with pemetrexed/cisplatin CT (without maintenance therapy), in previously untreated advanced or metastatic ALK+ NSCLC. The design and population of PROFILE 1014 was similar to that of ASCEND-4, though there were some differences between the trials. The Company considered it not possible to perform an ‘anchor-based’ analysis of first-line ceritinib and crizotinib, and presented a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) of ceritinib and crizotinib using only the ALK inhibitor arm of ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. The indirect comparison suggests that ceritinib may be more effective in prolonging PFS than crizotinib. The ERG agreed that an indirect comparison using only the ALK inhibitor arm of the trials was the only option available in the present assessment; however, a number of limitations and potential bias were identified in this analysis. The Company’s model estimated that ceritinib was cost effective when compared with crizotinib. However, the ERG highlighted several concerns with the Company’s analysis; the ERG’s preferred base case estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £69,255 per quality-adjusted life-year (no patient access scheme [PAS] included). The ERG considered the economic analysis to be sensitive to changes in assumption used, partly due to the due to the immaturity of the overall survival data from trials, which leads to uncertainty around the extrapolation used. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that ceritinib is recommended, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for untreated ALK+ advanced NSCLC in adults, if the Company provides it with the discount agreed in the PAS.
-
tisagenlecleucel for the treatment of relapsed or refractory b cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in people aged up to 25 years an evidence review group perspective of a nice Single Technology appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2019Co-Authors: Matthew Walton, Lindsay Claxton, Sahar Sharif, Mark Simmonds, Robert HodgsonAbstract:As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE’s) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, Novartis submitted evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel for treating paediatric and young adult patients (under the age of 25 years) with relapsed or refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). This article presents a summary of the Evidence Review Group’s (ERG’s) independent review of the evidence submission, the committee’s deliberations, and the subsequent development of NICE guidance for the use of tisagenlecleucel on the National Health Service (NHS) in England. Tisagenlecleucel is a chimeric antigen receptor-modified T-cell (CAR-T) product, the first of this emerging therapeutic class to be considered by NICE in this indication. The company’s evidence submission was based upon three Single-arm, phase II studies: ELIANA, ENSIGN, and B2101J. These trials demonstrated a beneficial effect of tisagenlecleucel, with significant extensions in event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to historical control datasets on blinatumomab and salvage chemotherapy. Adverse events were common; 77% of patients suffered from cytokine release syndrome (CRS), 56% of whom required intensive care unit-level care. The ERG did not consider clofarabine monotherapy an appropriate proxy for salvage chemotherapy. The company presented a hybrid cost-effectiveness model, combining a decision tree and three-state partitioned survival model structure. The majority of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were generated through additional life-years in the extrapolated ‘long-term survival’ phase of the model, where patients were assumed to be ‘cured’. The ERG considered the results to be subject to substantial uncertainty, due in part to immature trial data, unresolved long-term treatment effects, and a lack of appropriate comparator data. The ERG implemented a number of changes to the company’s model in an alternative base case, producing deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £45,397 per QALY gained versus salvage chemotherapy, and £27,732 versus blinatumomab. The probabilistic model produced ICERs of £48,265 per QALY gained versus salvage chemotherapy, and £29,501 versus blinatumomab. The committee considered the ERG’s analysis to be most closely aligned with their preferred assumptions, and did not consider tisagenlecleucel to meet both of the end-of-life (EoL) criteria. In recognition of the innovative nature of tisagenlecleucel, and the present immaturity of ongoing clinical trials, the committee considered further data collection would be valuable in resolving uncertainties around OS, the Technology’s novel mechanism of action, and the management of CRS and B-cell aplasia. The committee therefore recommended tisagenlecleucel for use in the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) until the conclusion of the ELIANA study (June 2023). This appraisal highlighted the difficulty of interpreting EoL criteria in the context of curative therapies and the valuation of cure versus extension of life. Further clarification of NICE’s position in these situations may be necessary to ensure consistency and equity in their decision-making.
-
crizotinib for untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive non small cell lung cancer an evidence review group perspective of a nice Single Technology appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2017Co-Authors: Philip James Morgan, Nerys Woolacott, Mousumi Biswas, Teumzghi F Mebrahtu, Melissa Harden, Robert HodgsonAbstract:As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology appraisal process, the manufacturer of crizotinib submitted evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of crizotinib in untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK-positive) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Crizotinib has previously been assessed by NICE for patients with previously treated ALK-positive NSCLC (TA 296). It was not approved in this previous appraisal, but had been made available through the cancer drugs fund. As part of this new appraisal, the company included a price discount patient access scheme (PAS). The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics Technology Appraisal Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company’s submission and the ERG’s review and summarises the resulting NICE guidance issued in August 2016. The main clinical-effectiveness data were derived from a multicentre randomised controlled trial—PROFILE 1014—that compared crizotinib with pemetrexed chemotherapy in combination with carboplatin or cisplatin in patients with untreated non-squamous ALK-positive NSCLC. In the trial, crizotinib demonstrated improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The company’s economic model was a three-state ‘area under the curve’ Markov model. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be greater than £50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (excluding the PAS discount). The ERG assessment of the evidence submitted by the company raised a number of concerns. In terms of the clinical evidence, the OS benefit was highly uncertain due to the cross-over permitted in the trial and the immaturity of the data; only 26% of events had occurred by the data cut-off point. In the economic modelling, the most significant concerns related to the analysis of OS and assumptions made regarding the duration of therapy. The ERG exploratory re-analysis of the OS data relaxed the assumption of proportional hazards made in the company submission, which demonstrated significant uncertainty regarding the OS gains from crizotinib. The ERG reconfigured the economic model so that duration of therapy was based on the area under the curve analysis of the PROFILE 1014 trial, dramatically increasing the cost associated with implementing crizotinib and consequently, substantially increasing the ICER. At the first appraisal meeting, the NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that crizotinib, while clinically effective, was not sufficiently cost effective for use in the UK NHS. Following the consultation, the company offered a revised PAS and conducted extensive re-analysis, resulting in a revised base-case ICER of £47,291 per QALY gained. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that crizotinib was likely to be a cost-effective use of NHS resources, despite the uncertainty that persisted around a number of factors, namely the long-term survival benefit of crizotinib. Crizotinib was therefore recommended as an option for untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in adults.
Nerys Woolacott - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
ceritinib for untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive advanced non small cell lung cancer an evidence review group evaluation of a nice Single Technology appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2019Co-Authors: Lindsay Claxton, Nerys Woolacott, Joanne Oconnor, Kath Wright, Robert HodgsonAbstract:The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ceritinib (Zykadia®, Novartis) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug, as a first-line treatment for adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive (+) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as part of the Institute’s Single Technology appraisal (STA) process. The CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) and CHE (Centre for Health Economics) Technology Assessment Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the Company’s submission (CS), the ERG review and NICE’s subsequent decisions. The evidence submitted in support of ceritinib, as the first-line treatment in ALK+ advanced NSCLC, was a phase III, international, multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing ceritinib with pemetrexed/cisplatin plus pemetrexed maintenance therapy (chemotherapy [CT] group). The results indicated that ceritinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with CT. The only comparator considered in the CS was crizotinib. The evidence selected in support of crizotinib was PROFILE 1014, an open-label RCT of crizotinib, compared with pemetrexed/cisplatin CT (without maintenance therapy), in previously untreated advanced or metastatic ALK+ NSCLC. The design and population of PROFILE 1014 was similar to that of ASCEND-4, though there were some differences between the trials. The Company considered it not possible to perform an ‘anchor-based’ analysis of first-line ceritinib and crizotinib, and presented a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) of ceritinib and crizotinib using only the ALK inhibitor arm of ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. The indirect comparison suggests that ceritinib may be more effective in prolonging PFS than crizotinib. The ERG agreed that an indirect comparison using only the ALK inhibitor arm of the trials was the only option available in the present assessment; however, a number of limitations and potential bias were identified in this analysis. The Company’s model estimated that ceritinib was cost effective when compared with crizotinib. However, the ERG highlighted several concerns with the Company’s analysis; the ERG’s preferred base case estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £69,255 per quality-adjusted life-year (no patient access scheme [PAS] included). The ERG considered the economic analysis to be sensitive to changes in assumption used, partly due to the due to the immaturity of the overall survival data from trials, which leads to uncertainty around the extrapolation used. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that ceritinib is recommended, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for untreated ALK+ advanced NSCLC in adults, if the Company provides it with the discount agreed in the PAS.
-
crizotinib for untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive non small cell lung cancer an evidence review group perspective of a nice Single Technology appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2017Co-Authors: Philip James Morgan, Nerys Woolacott, Mousumi Biswas, Teumzghi F Mebrahtu, Melissa Harden, Robert HodgsonAbstract:As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology appraisal process, the manufacturer of crizotinib submitted evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of crizotinib in untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK-positive) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Crizotinib has previously been assessed by NICE for patients with previously treated ALK-positive NSCLC (TA 296). It was not approved in this previous appraisal, but had been made available through the cancer drugs fund. As part of this new appraisal, the company included a price discount patient access scheme (PAS). The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics Technology Appraisal Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company’s submission and the ERG’s review and summarises the resulting NICE guidance issued in August 2016. The main clinical-effectiveness data were derived from a multicentre randomised controlled trial—PROFILE 1014—that compared crizotinib with pemetrexed chemotherapy in combination with carboplatin or cisplatin in patients with untreated non-squamous ALK-positive NSCLC. In the trial, crizotinib demonstrated improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The company’s economic model was a three-state ‘area under the curve’ Markov model. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be greater than £50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (excluding the PAS discount). The ERG assessment of the evidence submitted by the company raised a number of concerns. In terms of the clinical evidence, the OS benefit was highly uncertain due to the cross-over permitted in the trial and the immaturity of the data; only 26% of events had occurred by the data cut-off point. In the economic modelling, the most significant concerns related to the analysis of OS and assumptions made regarding the duration of therapy. The ERG exploratory re-analysis of the OS data relaxed the assumption of proportional hazards made in the company submission, which demonstrated significant uncertainty regarding the OS gains from crizotinib. The ERG reconfigured the economic model so that duration of therapy was based on the area under the curve analysis of the PROFILE 1014 trial, dramatically increasing the cost associated with implementing crizotinib and consequently, substantially increasing the ICER. At the first appraisal meeting, the NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that crizotinib, while clinically effective, was not sufficiently cost effective for use in the UK NHS. Following the consultation, the company offered a revised PAS and conducted extensive re-analysis, resulting in a revised base-case ICER of £47,291 per QALY gained. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that crizotinib was likely to be a cost-effective use of NHS resources, despite the uncertainty that persisted around a number of factors, namely the long-term survival benefit of crizotinib. Crizotinib was therefore recommended as an option for untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in adults.
-
Dabigatran for the Prevention of Stroke and Systemic Embolism in Atrial Fibrillation: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2013Co-Authors: Rita Faria, Nerys Woolacott, Chris Pepper, Eldon Spackman, Jane Burch, Belen Corbacho, Derick Todd, Stephen PalmerAbstract:The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of dabigatran etexilate (Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd, UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this drug for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) as part of the NICE Single Technology appraisal process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the evidence review group (ERG). This article presents a summary of the manufacturer’s submission, the ERG report and the subsequent development of NICE guidance for the use of dabigatran within the UK National Health Service. Dabigatran was granted marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency for a sequential dosing regimen (DBG sequential), in which patients under 80 years are treated with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (DBG150) and patients 80 years and over are given dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (DBG110). NICE decisions are bound by the marketing authorisation; therefore, the decision problem faced by the committee was whether the DBG sequential regimen was effective and cost-effective compared with warfarin or aspirin for patients with non-valvular AF and one or more risk factors. The RE-LY trial, a large multi-centre non-inferiority randomised clinical trial, was the primary source of clinical evidence. DBG150 was shown to be non-inferior, and subsequently superior to warfarin, for the primary outcome of all stroke/systemic embolism. DBG110 was found to be non-inferior to warfarin. Results were presented for a post hoc subgroup analysis for patients under and over 80 years of age, where DBG110 showed a statistically significant reduction of haemorrhagic stroke and intracranial haemorrhage in comparison to warfarin in patients over 80 years of age. This post hoc subgroup analysis by age was the basis for the licensed DBG sequential regimen. The economic evaluation compared the costs and outcomes of DBG110, DBG150 and DBG sequential against warfarin, aspirin, and aspirin plus clopidogrel. Across the three dosing regimens, dabigatran was associated with greater costs and better health outcomes than warfarin; however, DBG150 offered the most benefits and dominated DBG110 and DBG sequential (i.e. less costly and more effective). The cost-effectiveness of DBG150 was less favourable for patients well controlled on warfarin. In the first appraisal meeting, the committee issued a ‘minded no’ decision until additional analyses on the licensed DBG sequential regimen were presented by the manufacturer. These additional analyses indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the DBG sequential regimen compared with warfarin ranged from £8,388 to £18,987 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained depending on the level of monitoring costs assumed for warfarin. Patients on warfarin would need to be within therapeutic range 83–85 % of the time for the ICER to exceed £30,000 per additional QALY. Following consideration of the additional evidence and the responses from a large number of consultees and commentators, the committee recommended dabigatran as DBG sequential as an option for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in people with non-valvular AF with one or more risk factors for ischaemic stroke.
-
dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation a nice Single Technology appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2012Co-Authors: Claire Mckenna, Nerys Woolacott, E Maund, Muhammad Sarowar, David Fox, Mark Stevenson, Chris Pepper, Stephen PalmerAbstract:The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of dronedarone (Multaq®, Sanofi-Aventis Limited, UK) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter, as part of the Institute’s Single Technology appraisal (STA) process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Centre for Health Economics, both at the University of York, were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE’s subsequent decisions regarding the use of dronedarone within the UK NHS.
-
omalizumab for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in children aged 6 11 years a nice Single Technology appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2012Co-Authors: Jane Burch, Susan Griffin, Kath Wright, Claire Mckenna, Simon Walker, J Y Paton, Nerys WoolacottAbstract:Following a licence extension to include those aged 6–11 years, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of omalizumab (Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for patients with severe persistent allergic asthma in this age bracket. NICE had previously considered the use of omalizumab in patients aged 12 years and over. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) and the Centre for Health Economics (CHE) at the University of York were commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) to critically appraise the evidence presented by the manufacturer. This article summarizes that review of the evidence, the deliberations of the NICE Appraisal Committee and the resulting NICE guidance. The ERG critically reviewed the evidence presented in the manufacturer’s submission and identified areas requiring clarification, for which the manufacturer provided additional evidence. The relevant patient population was patients aged 6–11 years of age with severe persistent allergic immunoglobulin E-mediated asthma whose condition remained uncontrolled despite best standard care with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and a long-acting inhaled β2-agonist. The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from a pre-planned subgroup analysis of a Single randomized controlled trial comparing omalizumab plus standard therapy against standard therapy alone. At a 52-week follow-up, the only outcome to show a statistically significant benefit of omalizumab compared with placebo was the number of exacerbations defined as ‘clinically significant’ [CS] (relative risk [RR] 0.504; 95% CI 0.350, 0.725; p<0.001). At the ERG’s request, the manufacturer provided analyses stratified by baseline exacerbation rate, which indicated the effect of omalizumab on CS exacerbations was statistically significant only for those children with ≥3 exacerbations as baseline. The ERG identified a number of issues relating to the clinical effectiveness results: it was unclear whether the pre-planned subgroup analysis had sufficient power; the definition of CS exacerbation was less severe than that used in UK clinical practice; and the method for imputing exacerbations for those who withdrew from treatment may have underestimated the exacerbation rate. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio based on the manufacturer’s results was considerably above the threshold range stated in the NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. The ERG identified numerous issues relating to the cost-effectiveness results, which included the following: the 10-year time horizon for treatment may exceed that in clinical practice; the assumption of constant exacerbation rates over a lifetime given that adolescence is expected to impact on the severity of asthma; and whether it is appropriate to use health-related quality-of-life data collected in adults for children. The ERG concluded that omalizumab appears to reduce CS exacerbations but there was no evidence of improvement in daily symptoms, CS severe (CSS) exacerbations or hospitalization rates. The main driver of cost effectiveness was the reduction in asthma-related mortality associated with a reduction in CSS exacerbations. As the number of CSS exacerbations avoided was low, as is asthma-related mortality in children, the potential small gain in QALYs associated with omalizumab was not sufficient to compensate for the high treatment cost even under the most favourable scenario analyses. The Appraisal Committee recommended that omalizumab should not be routinely provided for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in children aged 6–11 years.
Lindsay Claxton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Tisagenlecleucel for the Treatment of Relapsed or Refractory B-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia in People Aged up to 25 Years: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2019Co-Authors: Matthew Walton, Lindsay Claxton, Sahar Sharif, Mark Simmonds, Robert HodgsonAbstract:As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE’s) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, Novartis submitted evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel for treating paediatric and young adult patients (under the age of 25 years) with relapsed or refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). This article presents a summary of the Evidence Review Group’s (ERG’s) independent review of the evidence submission, the committee’s deliberations, and the subsequent development of NICE guidance for the use of tisagenlecleucel on the National Health Service (NHS) in England. Tisagenlecleucel is a chimeric antigen receptor-modified T-cell (CAR-T) product, the first of this emerging therapeutic class to be considered by NICE in this indication. The company’s evidence submission was based upon three Single-arm, phase II studies: ELIANA, ENSIGN, and B2101J. These trials demonstrated a beneficial effect of tisagenlecleucel, with significant extensions in event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to historical control datasets on blinatumomab and salvage chemotherapy. Adverse events were common; 77% of patients suffered from cytokine release syndrome (CRS), 56% of whom required intensive care unit-level care. The ERG did not consider clofarabine monotherapy an appropriate proxy for salvage chemotherapy. The company presented a hybrid cost-effectiveness model, combining a decision tree and three-state partitioned survival model structure. The majority of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were generated through additional life-years in the extrapolated ‘long-term survival’ phase of the model, where patients were assumed to be ‘cured’. The ERG considered the results to be subject to substantial uncertainty, due in part to immature trial data, unresolved long-term treatment effects, and a lack of appropriate comparator data. The ERG implemented a number of changes to the company’s model in an alternative base case, producing deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £45,397 per QALY gained versus salvage chemotherapy, and £27,732 versus blinatumomab. The probabilistic model produced ICERs of £48,265 per QALY gained versus salvage chemotherapy, and £29,501 versus blinatumomab. The committee considered the ERG’s analysis to be most closely aligned with their preferred assumptions, and did not consider tisagenlecleucel to meet both of the end-of-life (EoL) criteria. In recognition of the innovative nature of tisagenlecleucel, and the present immaturity of ongoing clinical trials, the committee considered further data collection would be valuable in resolving uncertainties around OS, the Technology’s novel mechanism of action, and the management of CRS and B-cell aplasia. The committee therefore recommended tisagenlecleucel for use in the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) until the conclusion of the ELIANA study (June 2023). This appraisal highlighted the difficulty of interpreting EoL criteria in the context of curative therapies and the valuation of cure versus extension of life. Further clarification of NICE’s position in these situations may be necessary to ensure consistency and equity in their decision-making.
-
ceritinib for untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive advanced non small cell lung cancer an evidence review group evaluation of a nice Single Technology appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2019Co-Authors: Lindsay Claxton, Nerys Woolacott, Joanne Oconnor, Kath Wright, Robert HodgsonAbstract:The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ceritinib (Zykadia®, Novartis) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug, as a first-line treatment for adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive (+) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as part of the Institute’s Single Technology appraisal (STA) process. The CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) and CHE (Centre for Health Economics) Technology Assessment Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the Company’s submission (CS), the ERG review and NICE’s subsequent decisions. The evidence submitted in support of ceritinib, as the first-line treatment in ALK+ advanced NSCLC, was a phase III, international, multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing ceritinib with pemetrexed/cisplatin plus pemetrexed maintenance therapy (chemotherapy [CT] group). The results indicated that ceritinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with CT. The only comparator considered in the CS was crizotinib. The evidence selected in support of crizotinib was PROFILE 1014, an open-label RCT of crizotinib, compared with pemetrexed/cisplatin CT (without maintenance therapy), in previously untreated advanced or metastatic ALK+ NSCLC. The design and population of PROFILE 1014 was similar to that of ASCEND-4, though there were some differences between the trials. The Company considered it not possible to perform an ‘anchor-based’ analysis of first-line ceritinib and crizotinib, and presented a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) of ceritinib and crizotinib using only the ALK inhibitor arm of ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. The indirect comparison suggests that ceritinib may be more effective in prolonging PFS than crizotinib. The ERG agreed that an indirect comparison using only the ALK inhibitor arm of the trials was the only option available in the present assessment; however, a number of limitations and potential bias were identified in this analysis. The Company’s model estimated that ceritinib was cost effective when compared with crizotinib. However, the ERG highlighted several concerns with the Company’s analysis; the ERG’s preferred base case estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £69,255 per quality-adjusted life-year (no patient access scheme [PAS] included). The ERG considered the economic analysis to be sensitive to changes in assumption used, partly due to the due to the immaturity of the overall survival data from trials, which leads to uncertainty around the extrapolation used. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that ceritinib is recommended, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for untreated ALK+ advanced NSCLC in adults, if the Company provides it with the discount agreed in the PAS.
-
tisagenlecleucel for the treatment of relapsed or refractory b cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in people aged up to 25 years an evidence review group perspective of a nice Single Technology appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2019Co-Authors: Matthew Walton, Lindsay Claxton, Sahar Sharif, Mark Simmonds, Robert HodgsonAbstract:As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE’s) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, Novartis submitted evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel for treating paediatric and young adult patients (under the age of 25 years) with relapsed or refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). This article presents a summary of the Evidence Review Group’s (ERG’s) independent review of the evidence submission, the committee’s deliberations, and the subsequent development of NICE guidance for the use of tisagenlecleucel on the National Health Service (NHS) in England. Tisagenlecleucel is a chimeric antigen receptor-modified T-cell (CAR-T) product, the first of this emerging therapeutic class to be considered by NICE in this indication. The company’s evidence submission was based upon three Single-arm, phase II studies: ELIANA, ENSIGN, and B2101J. These trials demonstrated a beneficial effect of tisagenlecleucel, with significant extensions in event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to historical control datasets on blinatumomab and salvage chemotherapy. Adverse events were common; 77% of patients suffered from cytokine release syndrome (CRS), 56% of whom required intensive care unit-level care. The ERG did not consider clofarabine monotherapy an appropriate proxy for salvage chemotherapy. The company presented a hybrid cost-effectiveness model, combining a decision tree and three-state partitioned survival model structure. The majority of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were generated through additional life-years in the extrapolated ‘long-term survival’ phase of the model, where patients were assumed to be ‘cured’. The ERG considered the results to be subject to substantial uncertainty, due in part to immature trial data, unresolved long-term treatment effects, and a lack of appropriate comparator data. The ERG implemented a number of changes to the company’s model in an alternative base case, producing deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £45,397 per QALY gained versus salvage chemotherapy, and £27,732 versus blinatumomab. The probabilistic model produced ICERs of £48,265 per QALY gained versus salvage chemotherapy, and £29,501 versus blinatumomab. The committee considered the ERG’s analysis to be most closely aligned with their preferred assumptions, and did not consider tisagenlecleucel to meet both of the end-of-life (EoL) criteria. In recognition of the innovative nature of tisagenlecleucel, and the present immaturity of ongoing clinical trials, the committee considered further data collection would be valuable in resolving uncertainties around OS, the Technology’s novel mechanism of action, and the management of CRS and B-cell aplasia. The committee therefore recommended tisagenlecleucel for use in the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) until the conclusion of the ELIANA study (June 2023). This appraisal highlighted the difficulty of interpreting EoL criteria in the context of curative therapies and the valuation of cure versus extension of life. Further clarification of NICE’s position in these situations may be necessary to ensure consistency and equity in their decision-making.
Nigel Armstrong - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Lenalidomide with Rituximab for Previously Treated Follicular Lymphoma and Marginal Zone Lymphoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2021Co-Authors: Willem J. A. Witlox, Nigel Armstrong, Rob Riemsma, Steven Duffy, Sabine E. Grimm, Steve Ryder, Vanesa Huertas Carrera, Pawel Posadzki, Gillian Worthy, Xavier G. L. V. PouwelsAbstract:The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Celgene) of lenalidomide (Revlimid^®), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide in combination with rituximab (MabThera^®), together referred to as R ^2, for the treatment of adults with treated follicular lymphoma (FL) or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG’s critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS included one relevant study, for the comparison of R ^2 versus rituximab monotherapy (R-mono): the AUGMENT trial. In addition, the company performed an unanchored indirect comparison of R ^2 versus rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) and rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CVP), using data for R ^2 from the AUGMENT trial and pooled data for R-CHOP/R-CVP from the Haematological Malignancy Research Network (HMRN) database. During the STA process, the company provided an addendum containing evidence on only the FL population, in line with the marketing authorisation obtained at that time, which did not include MZL. The probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) presented by the company were £27,768 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for R ^2 versus R-CHOP, £41,602 per QALY gained for R ^2 versus R-CVP, and £23,412 per QALY gained for R ^2 versus R-mono. The ERG’s concerns included the validity of the unanchored comparison, the unavailability of a state transition model to verify the outcomes of the partitioned survival model, substantial uncertainty in survival curves, and potential over-estimation of utility values. The revised ERG base case resulted in ICERs ranging from £16,874 to £44,888 per QALY gained for R ^2 versus R-CHOP, from £23,135 to £59,810 per QALY gained for R ^2 versus R-CVP, and from £18,779 to £27,156 per QALY gained for R ^2 versus R-mono. Substantial uncertainty remained around these ranges. NICE recommended R ^2 within its marketing authorisation, as an option for previously treated FL (grade 1–3A) in adults, contingent on the company providing lenalidomide according to the commercial arrangement.
-
Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant for Treating Recurrent Non-infectious Uveitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2020Co-Authors: Xavier G. L. V. Pouwels, Nigel Armstrong, Vanesa Huertas Carrera, Svenja Petersohn, Alastair K. Denniston, Annette Chalker, Heike Raatz, Dhwani Shah, Willem Witlox, Gill WorthyAbstract:The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Alimera Sciences, the company manufacturing fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant (FAc) 0.19 mg (tradename ILUVIEN^®), to submit evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of FAc for treating recurrent non-infectious uveitis. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre + , was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper contains a summary of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by the company, the ERG’s critique on the submitted evidence, and the guidance issued by the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The company submission (CS) was mainly informed by the PSV-FAI-001 trial in which FAc was compared with (limited) current practice [(L)CP], which was not considered to be representative of UK clinical practice by the ERG. There was no comparison of FAc to any treatment listed in the final scope, and especially to the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (dexamethasone), which was considered to be a relevant comparator by the AC. The primary outcome of the PSV-FAI-001 was recurrence of uveitis in the treated eye. Most of the events for the primary outcome were imputed during the PSV-FAI-001 trial, which probably led to an overestimation of the number of recurrences of disease, and a biased estimate of the relative effectiveness of FAc versus (L)CP. Finally, the place of FAc in the treatment pathway was not clearly defined by the company. Substantial uncertainty surrounded the cost-effectiveness results due to the shortcomings of the clinical evidence. Additionally, the quality of life of patients was not measured during the PSV-FAI-001 trial and long-term effectiveness data of FAc were lacking. The ERG adjusted several issues identified in the CS and added dexamethasone as a comparator in the decision analytic model. The ERG presented multiple analyses as base-cases because several elements of the assessment remained uncertain. The fully incremental ERG results ranged from dexamethasone (extendedly) dominating FAc (when assuming a hazard ratio of 1 or 0.7 for dexamethasone versus FAc) to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £30,153 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for FAc versus (L)CP [when assuming a hazard ratio of 0.456 for dexamethasone versus (L)CP]. The ICER of FAc versus (L)CP ranged from £12,325 to £30,153 per QALY gained. After a second AC meeting where alternative company scenarios comparing FAc with dexamethasone were considered by the AC, the AC concluded that “the results of the company’s analyses ranged from the fluocinolone acetonide implant being dominant (that is, it was more effective and costs less), to an ICER of £29,461 per QALY gained, and most of the ICERs were below £20,000 per QALY gained”. Therefore, the AC recommended FAc as a cost-effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources for treating recurrent non-infectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment of the eye in the final TA590 guidance (published July 2019).
-
Ribociclib with an Aromatase Inhibitor for Previously Untreated, HR-Positive, HER2-Negative, Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2019Co-Authors: Nasuh C. Büyükkaramikli, Supipi Duffy, Debra Fayter, Piet Portegijs, Nigel Armstrong, Rob Riemsma, Jos Kleijnen, Saskia De Groot, Maiwenn J AlAbstract:The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as part of the institute’s Single Technology appraisal process, invited the manufacturer of ribociclib (Kisqali®, Novartis) to submit evidence regarding the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug in combination with an aromatase inhibitor for the treatment of previously untreated, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd and Erasmus University Rotterdam were commissioned as the Evidence Review Group for this submission. The Evidence Review Group reviewed the evidence submitted by the manufacturer, corrected and validated the manufacturer’s decision analytic model, and conducted exploratory analyses to assess the robustness and validity of the presented clinical and cost-effectiveness results. This article describes the company submission, the Evidence Review Group assessment and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence subsequent decisions. The main clinical effectiveness evidence was obtained from the MONALEESA-2 trial, a randomised controlled trial comparing ribociclib plus letrozole with placebo plus letrozole. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ribociclib group (95% confidence interval, 19.3–not reached) vs. 14.7 months (95% confidence interval 13.0–16.5) in the placebo group. To assess the cost effectiveness of ribociclib in combination with an aromatase inhibitor, the company developed an individual patient-level model using a discrete-event simulation approach in Microsoft® Excel. In the model, simulated patients move through a series of three health states until death, i.e. first-line progression-free survival, second-line progression-free survival and progressive disease. The length of progression-free survival during the first line was informed by the MONALEESA-2 trial. The benefit in progression-free survival in the first line was transferred to a benefit in overall survival assuming full progression-free survival to overall survival surrogacy (because of the immaturity of overall survival data from the MONALEESA-2 trial). Patient-level data from the BOLERO-2 trial, evaluating the addition of everolimus to exemestane in the second-line treatment of postmenopausal HR-positive advanced breast cancer, were used to inform the length of progression-free survival during the second line. Costs included in the model were treatment costs (e.g. Technology acquisition costs of first, second, third and/or later line treatments), drug administration costs, monitoring costs and health state costs (including terminal care). Additionally, the costs of adverse events associated with the first-line treatment were incorporated. The Evidence Review Group recalculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using data from a different data cut-off date from the MONALEESA-2 trial and by changing some assumptions (e.g. progression-free survival to overall survival surrogacy approach and post-progression third and/or later line treatment-related costs). After two appraisal committee meetings and a revised base case submitted by the company (including a second enhanced patient access scheme discount), the committee concluded that taking into account the uncertainties in the calculation of the cost effectiveness, there were plausible cost-effectiveness estimates broadly in the range that could be considered as a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources. Therefore, ribociclib was recommended as a treatment option for the first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer, contingent on the company providing ribociclib with the discount agreed in the second enhanced patient access scheme.
-
trifluridine tipiracil for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer an evidence review group perspective of a nice Single Technology appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2018Co-Authors: Bram Ramaekers, Debra Fayter, Nigel Armstrong, Steven Duffy, Gill Worthy, Robert Wolff, Anoukh Van Giessen, Xavier Pouwels, Shona H Lang, Jos KleijnenAbstract:The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Servier, the company manufacturing trifluridine and tipiracil (T/T; trade name: Lonsurf®), to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of T/T compared with best supportive care (BSC) for metastatic colorectal cancer (third-line or later). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Center, was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper presents a summary of the company’s submission (CS), the ERG report and the development of the NICE guidance for the use of this drug in England and Wales by the appraisal committee (AC). The ERG produced a critical review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of T/T based upon the CS. In the CS, pooled evidence of two trials (a phase II trial and RECOURSE) showed that T/T resulted in a significant increase in overall survival [OS; hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.58–0.78] and progression-free survival (PFS; HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40–0.53). The AC considered the survival benefit of T/T clinically meaningful although relatively small. The ERG highlighted that none of the participants in the phase II trial and approximately half of the RECOURSE participants (394 of 800) were from Europe, which might limit the applicability of the study findings to the NHS. Moreover, the ERG’s critical assessment of the company’s economic evaluation highlighted a number of concerns that resulted in 11 adjustments to the company’s base-case analysis. The ERG adjustments that had the largest impact were using the RECOURSE trial data only (instead of the pooled evidence), fixing errors and violations and using the utilities from the CORRECT trial (identified in the literature review) only. The ERG preferred to use the RECOURSE trial data only given the suboptimal methodology used by the company to pool the evidence. However, since there were no fundamental arguments to prevent the two trials from being pooled, the ERG also presented its base-case analysis based on the pooled effectiveness estimates. The company base-case resulted in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £44,032 per QALY gained while the ERG base-case resulted in ICERs of £52,695 and £49,392 per QALY gained based on the RECOURSE trial only and pooled evidence, respectively. Since the AC concluded that the most plausible ICER was £49,392 per QALY gained, and that T/T meets end-of-life criteria, T/T was recommended as a cost effective use of NHS resources.
-
Ramucirumab for Treating Advanced Gastric Cancer or Gastro-Oesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma Previously Treated with Chemotherapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2017Co-Authors: Nasuh C. Büyükkaramikli, Nigel Armstrong, Rob Riemsma, Jos Kleijnen, Hedwig M. Blommestein, Fiona. J. Clay, Janine Ross, Gill Worthy, Johan Severens, Maiwenn J AlAbstract:The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ramucirumab (Cyramza^®, Eli Lilly and Company) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug administered alone (monotherapy) or with paclitaxel (combination therapy) for treating adults with advanced gastric cancer or gastro-oesophageal junction (GC/GOJ) adenocarcinoma that were previously treated with chemotherapy, as part of the Institute’s Single Technology appraisal (STA) process. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Erasmus University Rotterdam, was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company’s submission, the ERG review, and NICE’s subsequent decisions. Clinical effectiveness evidence for ramucirumab monotherapy (RAM), compared with best supportive care (BSC), was based on data from the REGARD trial. Clinical effectiveness evidence for ramucirumab combination therapy (RAM + PAC), compared with paclitaxel monotherapy (PAC), was based on data from the RAINBOW trial. In addition, the company undertook a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare RAM + PAC with BSC and docetaxel. Cost-effectiveness evidence of monotherapy and combination therapy relied on partitioned survival, cost-utility models. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the company was £188,640 (vs BSC) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for monotherapy and £118,209 (vs BSC) per QALY gained for combination therapy. The ERG assessment indicated that the modelling structure represented the course of the disease; however, a few errors were identified and some of the input parameters were challenged. The ERG provided a new base case, with ICERs (vs BSC) of £188,100 (monotherapy) per QALY gained and £129,400 (combination therapy) per QALY gained and conducted additional exploratory analyses. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC), considered the company’s decision problem was in line with the NICE scope, with the exception of the choice of comparators for the combination therapy model. The most plausible ICER for ramucirumab monotherapy compared with BSC was £188,100 per QALY gained. The Committee considered that the ERG’s exploratory analysis in which RAM + PAC was compared with PAC by using the direct head-to-head data (including utilities) from the RAINBOW trial, provided the most plausible ICER (i.e. £408,200 per QALY gained) for ramucirumab combination therapy. The Committee concluded that end-of-life considerations cannot be applied for either case, since neither failed to offer an extension to life of at least 3 months. The company did not submit a patient access scheme (PAS). After consideration of the evidence, the Committee concluded that ramucirumab alone or with paclitaxel could not be considered a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources for treating advanced GC/GOJ patients that were previously treated with chemotherapy, and therefore its use could not be recommended. We might wonder if a complete STA process is necessary for treatments without a PAS, which are, according to the company’s submission, already associated with ICERs far above the currently accepted threshold in all (base-case, sensitivity and scenario) analyses.
Mark Stevenson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
baricitinib for previously treated moderate or severe rheumatoid arthritis an evidence review group perspective of a nice Single Technology appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2018Co-Authors: Shijie Ren, Ruth Wong, Emma Simpson, Iñigo Bermejo, Adam Young, David Scott, Mark StevensonAbstract:© 2018 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
-
tofacitinib for treating rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of disease modifying anti rheumatic drugs an evidence review group perspective of a nice Single Technology appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2018Co-Authors: Lesley Uttley, Ruth Wong, Shijie Ren, Iñigo Bermejo, Adam Young, Marrissa Martynst James, David Scott, Mark StevensonAbstract:As part of its Single Technology Appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Pfizer) of tofacitinib (TOF; Xeljanz®) to submit evidence of the drug's clinical and cost-effectiveness in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence in the company's submission for TOF is based predominantly on four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of TOF against placebo. Three RCTs investigated TOF in combination with methotrexate (MTX), and one RCT investigated TOF monotherapy. All four RCTs compared TOF with placebo plus cDMARDs, one RCT also included adalimumab as a comparator. The study population in the four RCTs comprised patients who were MTX inadequate responders or cDMARD inadequate responders (cDMARD-IR). The company performed network meta-analyses (NMA) to assess the relative efficacy of TOF compared with biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in patients who were cDMARD-IR or bDMARD-IR with moderate-to-severe RA for European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index at 6 months. The company's NMA concluded that TOF had comparable efficacy to bDMARDs currently recommended by NICE. The company submitted a de novo model that assessed the cost-effectiveness of TOF versus its comparators in six different populations: (1) cDMARD-IR with severe RA; (2) cDMARD-IR with severe RA for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated; (3) bDMARD-IR; (4) bDMARD-IR for whom rituximab (RTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated; (5) bDMARD-IR for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated; and, (6) cDMARD-IR with moderate RA. According to the company's economic analyses, in cDMARD-IR with severe RA, TOF plus MTX dominates or extendedly dominates most comparators, whilst TOF monotherapy is slightly less effective and less expensive than its comparators, with the cost saved per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) lost always higher than £50,000. In bDMARD-IR with severe RA, RTX plus MTX dominated TOF plus MTX, but in patients for whom RTX was not an option, TOF plus MTX dominated all comparators included in the analysis (four comparators recommended by NICE were not included). In cDMARD-IR with moderate RA, the cost per QALY for TOF in combination with MTX or as monotherapy compared with a sequence of cDMARDs was estimated to be greater than £50,000/QALY. The ERG identified a number of limitations in the company's analyses, including use of a fixed-effects model in the NMA and the use of treatment sequences in the cost-effectiveness model which did not reflect NICE recommendations. These limitations were addressed partly by the company during the clarification round and partly by the ERG. The exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG resulted in similar conclusions: (1) TOF plus MTX was dominated by RTX plus MTX; (2) TOF in combination with MTX or as monotherapy dominates or extendedly dominates some of its comparators in cDMARD-IR and bDMARD-IR with severe RA for whom RTX plus MTX was not an option; and (3) in cDMARD-IR with moderate RA, the cost per QALY of TOF in combination with MTX or as a monotherapy versus cDMARDs was in excess of £47,000. The NICE Appraisal Committee consequently recommended TOF plus MTX as an option for patients whose disease has responded inadequately to intensive therapy with a combination of cDMARDs only if (1) disease is severe [a Disease Activity Score (DAS28) of more than 5.1] and (2) the company provides TOF with the discount agreed in the Patient Access Scheme (PAS). TOF plus MTX is also recommended as an option for adults whose disease has responded inadequately to, or who cannot have, other DMARDs, including at least one bDMARD, only if (1) disease is severe, (2) they cannot have RTX, and (3) the company provides TOF with the discount agreed in the PAS. For patients who are intolerant of MTX, or where MTX is contraindicated, TOF monotherapy is recommended where TOF plus MTX would be recommended.
-
dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation a nice Single Technology appraisal
PharmacoEconomics, 2012Co-Authors: Claire Mckenna, Nerys Woolacott, E Maund, Muhammad Sarowar, David Fox, Mark Stevenson, Chris Pepper, Stephen PalmerAbstract:The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of dronedarone (Multaq®, Sanofi-Aventis Limited, UK) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter, as part of the Institute’s Single Technology appraisal (STA) process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Centre for Health Economics, both at the University of York, were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE’s subsequent decisions regarding the use of dronedarone within the UK NHS.
